IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 11 OF MARCH, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 5921 of 2025 RAM MILAN RAI Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RTA) AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Mayur Gulati - P.L. for the State.

Shri Brajesh Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER By way of this petition, challenge is made to the order Annexure P-9 passed by the STAT in revision No.56/2025, whereby the STAT has allowed the revision filed by the respondent No.2 and cancelled the permit granted to the present petitioner.

2. Counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that the respondent No.2 had no locus to challenge the grant of permit to the petitioner, because the respondent No.2 became route operator only on 05.05.2025, because he lifted the permit on 05.05.2025, whereas the petitioner had already lifted the permit on 02.05.2025. Therefore, the date when permit had been granted to the petitioner, the respondent was not a rival route operator and therefore, he did not have any locus to submit application/objection to object grant of permit to the petitioner and once he did not have any locus to object to grant of permit to the petitioner, then he also does not have any locus to file revision against grant of permit.

3. It is further argued that the reason assigned by the STAT in cancelling the permit that the bus of the petitioner does not fall within the requisite parameters of stage carriage, because it is having seating capacity of only 36 persons though it should have a minimum capacity of 37 persons is also not proper.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent had vehemently argued that though the petitioner had lifted the permit on 02.05.2025, but actually the application for permit was filed by the respondent No.2 much before the application having been filed by the petitioner. Even the hearing on application of the respondent No.2 took place on 11.3.2025 whereas the hearing on application of petitioner took place on 22.04.2025. It is further argued that the grant order was passed in case of petitioner on 29.04.2025 though the grant order in favour of the respondent No.2 had already been passed much prior on 08.04.2025. On these grounds, it is contended that the petitioner has no legs to stand and the respondent No.2 remains the rival route operator as on the date of grant order, which was 29.04.2025, because there was already a grant order in favour of the respondent No.2 on

08.04.2025.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. In the present case, the question of locus is not so much relevant, because the STAT has cancelled the permit of the petitioner on the ground that his bus does not fall within the purview of Rule 77 (1-A) of M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994, which provides in terms of Rule 77 (1)(a)(iv)(1) as under:-

Deluxe Air Conditioned Bus not less than 35+2 seats *[including]

driver and conductor.

*Subs. for the word "excluding" by No.21, Dt. 10.2.2014.

7. The aforesaid rule would clearly infer that for a Deluxe Air Conditioned Bus, which is the bus in the present case, the minimum seating capacity should be 35+2, which means that 35 would be the passenger capacity and 2 seats would be driver and conductor. This is the minimum seating capacity as required under the M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. 8. As against this registration certificate of the bus in question clearly mentions that it is having a seating capacity of 36 in all. The registration certificate clearly mentions the seating capacity as 36 (in all). Therefore, it would mean that the seating capacity including driver and conductor would be 36 whereas seating capacity as per the Madhya Pradesh Rules should be 37, i.e. 35+2. Petitioner at this stage argued that it is not compulsory to keep a conductor in the bus. However, this Court cannot countenance this argument, because Rule 77 clearly mentions that there have to be 35+2 seat